Brown & Brown vs Marsh McLennan
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Brown & Brown and Marsh McLennan side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Marsh McLennan is the larger business, with $27.0B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $5.9B for Brown & Brown, about 4.6 times as much.
- Brown & Brown grew revenue faster (22.8%, against 10.3%).
- Brown & Brown turned more of its sales into free cash flow (23.4% FCF margin, against 18.5%).
- Marsh McLennan earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (15.0%, against 9.1%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Marsh McLennan’s earnings: a P/E of 23.3x against 22.4x for Brown & Brown.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 9 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Brown & Brown
BRO
4/9
Revenue growth5-year growthNet marginFCF margin
Marsh McLennan
MRSH
5/9
Return on capitalReturn on equityPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDAShare count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | BRO FY25 | MRSH FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $23.7B | $93.3B |
| Revenue | $5.9B | $27.0B |
| Free cash flow | $1.4B | $5.0B |
| Net income | $1.1B | $4.2B |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 22.8% | 10.3% |
| 5-year growth | 17.7% | 9.4% |
| Share count change | 10.2% | −0.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | — | — |
| Operating margin | — | 23.1% |
| Net margin | 17.9% | 15.4% |
| FCF margin | 23.4% | 18.5% |
| Return on capital | 9.1% | 15.0% |
| Return on equity | 11.1% | 28.8% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $6.5B | $16.9B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.8x | 2.6x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $293M | $3.7B |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 22.4x | 23.3x |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.